Hi folks! I am starting this thread because another poster got me to wondering about something. How acceptable to potential employers is a D/L law degree where the holder has passed the Bar? Here in New Mexico, a D/L JD holder would have had to practice five years in California before being admitted to the New Mexico Bar. That being so, I imagine that the source of the JD wouldn't much matter, at least in State employment. I would certainly consider hiring such a person in our agency, the Public Defender. I know for fact that we'd hire the holder of a CA Bar approved degree...we've done it. Any comments? Joybaum
My personal opinion is that the State Bars should reach a licensing consensus like physicians and the USMLE's. This one licensing exam standard should determine the minimal initial practice standards regardless of the school where one studies law. Of course, the moral character evaluation could still be done by each state. Whereas the minimal standard in most non professional degree programs focuses more so on traditional accreditation (RA, GAAP, etc.), I think the minimal standard for professional programs is in licensure (Bar, USMLE's, etc.). This is where one proves (though I admit, a non perfect test taking system--but let's not go there--it's another topic) and demonstrates the quality of one's learning--regardless if the school was Harvard or not. To answer whether New Mexico should hire a DL law degree person who has passed the California Bar and has practiced for at least 5 years before applying for admission--I'd say yes based on the fact that the DL law degree attorney has been certified with the equivalent minimal standards as any other attorney from CA applying for employment in New Mexico. The privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution and state equal employment laws should be applied for fair treatment. As to what I think of DL law programs, I don't know for sure. I waiver back and forth in admiration (for those who can pass the Bar by going such route) and partial rejection--in that I would probably hesitate in going to professionals (i.e., architects, physicians, etc. assuming they can study via DL) with DL degrees and training. Maybe it's just my preference. There may be people out there that have no problems at surface with an architect that did his degree via correspondence or a physician by the same route (if allowed), for me, I am not that courageous yet. As a matter of fact, if one of my family members needed a life threatening surgery, and all I know at surface was that one surgeon went to the University of California at San Francisco Medical School and one (an equally qualified surgeon--not better not worse) from a Carribean medical school, I would have to choose the UCSF surgeon (if I can afford him). I don't think I'm being unreasonable--just human. On the other hand, I would without a heartbeat choose the Carribean medical school surgeon if he has a good reputation and has been doing the type of surgery I needed for many years as opposed to a UCSF surgeon who may have graduated top of his class but butt naked out of residency, with only a few surgeries of my kind under his/her belt. I think I would apply this type of scenario to practicing attorneys also. EsqPhD
Homo sapiens are the same in all the states (except California), so a national medical licensing exam is reasonable. However, the law in the various states differs and the states would lose the ability to test on the particulars of their respective state law with a national exam. What would be the basis of a national exam? English common law?
A person leaving California, even after 5 years, may not receive full reciprocity. I haven't bothered to find the cite, but there is a case decided in the Mass Supreme Judicial Court recently where someone with a foreign, non ABA degree but with a Tulane RA ABA approved LLM, who had already been licensed in NY and LA, was denied permission to take the MASS bar. As for the Full Faith & Protection clause someone earlier mentioned, that does not seem to apply to bar licenses, as each state has its own rules as to who gets in, who gets in without an exam, who is even entitled to take the exam, etc. For example, F.Lee Bailey, after over 20 years in practice in MASS, still had to take the full FLA bar with the recent grads when he decided to move there in the 90's. In CALIF, he would have been entitled to take a shorter attorney's exam, in many other states such as WASH, he would have received reciprocity after paying the fees and undergoing a background check. As for employability, in the law, like it or not, there is a HUGE emphasis placed on where you got your degree, particularly in larger firms. That said, a bottom of the class Harvard or Yale grad will typically beat out a promising grad from the local state school, etc. Especially with the proliferation of lawyers out there, why would a firm take a chance with a DL grad where there are legions of second and third thier RA/ABA school grads looking for jobs out there? Unless the hiring partner was DL friendly or a prior grad, my guess would be that the DL grad would never even get an interview.
So do I understand you to think that a D/L JD with the necessary experience might have an easier time finding work in the public sector than at a private firm? Joybaum
As someone noted above, it would probably depend on whether other DL graduates had previously joined the firm--again, with the amount of lawyers out there, I would suspect that a new graduate of a ABA approved law school may have a better chance to get into the public sector than a DL law graduate unless the DL had documented experience in the field of law, along with good references. So to answer joy's question, I would suspect that it would depend on both the experience the DL grad has in the field, along with documented and proven capability to perform the task requested. Hope this helps. Reg Pitts
Does the source of the degree matter more for the first job or does it follow the lawyer around forever? The reason I ask is, around here in the wilds of southern New Mexico a lawyer acquires a reputation very, very quickly with firms, state agencies, and the bench. Around here, the trick is to get your FIRST job. Comments, anyone? Joybaum
I agreee that as one progresses in his/her career, the "rep" can eclipse the degree source, such as with NESL grads, BUT DL JD's haven't been around all that long, so its hard to tell. As you know, law firms are largely conservative bastions resistant to change, so I wouldn't encourage one to get his/her hopes up. The trick is to get those first opportunities to gain your "rep." A Dl grad might find more "non traditional" options such as public interest litigation, etc. open initially than firm or even governmental/public sector work. I think law clerking/working on a state or federal court at any level would be foreclosed given the degree source. I don't know if a CJA panel would be picky, but in some areas its competitive. The fundamental question I have, and although it may sound sacreligious to Rich et al., but if one truly wants to be a practicing lawyer, and given the proliferation of evening/part-time low-cost JD programs out there in RA/ABA schools, why would someone waste their time in a DL program? Surely, the inconvenience of driving to class a copuple times a week would outweigh the lifetime of justifying oneself and/or taking lesser jobs.
For a national Bar exam, I would lean towards the form of federal common law as is emphasized presently in the law schools and as supplemented by basic U.S. common law. As for the minor state exam distinctions like community property states verses non-community states, etc., I think it can be compromised. Either make the Bar candidate know all of the agreed upon state subjects or just do away with it. Some of these subjects aren't always tested in every Bar exam anyway. I don't think this will fly anytime soon mainly because of the fact that the states with the harder Bars (i.e., CA, NY, etc.) probably won't budge downward and the easier Bar states may have concerns in making their exams too hard. EsqPhD
I think you're largely right: Like other employment sectors, the source of one's degree becomes less important as one develops a "real life" track record. Exceptions in the legal field might include moving to a different locale, applying for mid-career judicial clerkships, and applying for full-time teaching positions.
Given the current position of the ABA on DL degrees, I would agree that someone who wants to practice law would be best off in a residential program at an ABA school. Bear in mind, though, that for many US residents this would entail far more than driving to classes a couple of nights a week. Most law schools are in or near major urban areas. Some people live hundreds of miles from the nearest ABA law school. If they are not able to uproot themselves and their families, I can understand why they would seek less desirable options, such as the California-approved DL schools. Alex
